Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 2

Pages: (500) < ... 165 166 167 168 169 [170] 171 172 173 174 175 ... >

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,18:14    Quote @olegt: I just want Darwinists to acknowledge that ID has peer-revied papers published with positive ID evidence (of course technically the articles are not published yet). If you think those papers contain errors, it's up to you to prove it. Actually, no, that's not how science works. A paper being published does not mean it's certified as correct. Furthermore, negative results in a model of evolution does not qualify as postulating a new model. Finally, it's not up to the scientific community to shoot down every new proposed paradigm. it's up to those who want science to adopt a new paradigm, to convince the scientific community to do so. The burden is always on the revolutionary, and he does not succeed until he's convinced the mainstream to use his new paradigm. You would know that if you had a basic understanding of philosophy of science and history of science. PS please stop randomly inserting commas into your sentences.

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,18:50    Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:07) This is clearly POSITIVE evidence for ID. Dembski's articles are peer-reviewed, which means they are good quality stuff! Stop being such a bad loser and accept that ID has peer-reviewd articles. Do we have any independent evidence that these papers were even submitted to a journal, let alone reviewed and accepted? I'm sorry, but I have seen too many misleading statements from IDers and creationists. Even then, there is no guarantee that it will actually appear in print. I had a paper very favourably reviewed and accepted 5 years ago that has still to see the light of day. (It was not a research paper. The journal was the most appropriate one the librarian and I could think of, a third-world one that had some excellent papers, but it lost its funding). BTW, peer-review is not an assurance of sterling quality. I (and no doubt most other commentators here) have seen peer-reviewed papers that were rubbish. -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,18:59    Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:07) @oldmanintheskydidntdoit: I feel  honored that you remember me from PT, however you should know that one of my postings was censored, because I wrote that Carl Zimmer was wrong. It seems like you're the one who forbid open criticism.       Quote “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search” William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks I Abstract: Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search can stand no hope of success. Success, instead, requires an assisted search. assisted search = intelligent designer This is clearly POSITIVE evidence for ID. What part of "It can't be non-design!" are you having difficulty comprehending? Clue: when your argument depends upon rejecting something else, it is a negative argument.   Quote Dembski's articles are peer-reviewed, which means they are good quality stuff! Stop being such a bad loser and accept that ID has peer-reviewd articles. The issue is not the existence of peer-reviewed articles. If none exist, it is quite clear that science is not even being attempted. Beyond that, there's a large difference between having a paper or a few papers in the literature and convincing the scientific community that your arguments are good. Even the DI, by including some books and counting the same paper several times, wasn't getting much past a count of 30; I compared that to the cold fusion research record of about 900 peer-reviewed papers. If you think peer-review is the be-all and end-all, though, be sure to check out this peer-reviewed paper on intelligent design: it's one more than Dembski has managed to publish on the topic. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

dmso74 Posts: 110 Joined: Aug. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2009,19:21    Quote What part of "It can't be non-design!" are you having difficulty comprehending? Clue: when your argument depends upon rejecting something else, it is a negative argument. well, to be persnickety, when you perform any hypothesis-based statistical test, you are actually determining if you can  reject the null hypothesis. ID seems to use evolution by natural selection (or a strawman version therof) as a null hypothesis, which is clearly not appropriate. what they need to do to get positive evidence is test their ideas of how stuff poofs into existence against an actual null model. i'll leave it up to them to figure out how to do that.

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,04:20    Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:07) @oldmanintheskydidntdoit: I feel  honored that you remember me from PT, however you should know that one of my postings was censored, because I wrote that Carl Zimmer was wrong. It seems like you're the one who forbid open criticism.       Quote “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search” William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks I Abstract: Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search can stand no hope of success. Success, instead, requires an assisted search. assisted search = intelligent designer This is clearly POSITIVE evidence for ID. Dembski's articles are peer-reviewed, which means they are good quality stuff! Stop being such a bad loser and accept that ID has peer-reviewd articles. Nils, what these papers show is that despite a degree in Philosophy of Science and ten+ years in the field of ID, Dembski still doesn't understand how evolution works. He thinks living things are searching for the infinitismal portion of all possible genomes that will construct an organism capable of reproducing.  He is wrong! The fact that Dembski came from parents and has managed to reproduce himself shows that his DNA is already in the sweet spot!  ALL living organisms that successfully reproduce are in it.  They don't have to search for it, they just have to stay in it.  They do this by making only small changes to their genomes when they reproduce. Tell this to Dr. Dr. Dembski so he can finally stop making a fool of himself.

Laminar_ Posts: 14 Joined: Dec. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,05:19    My comment is awaiting moderation at UD so I'll post it here as well: From the CoS paper: “In evolutionary search, a large number offspring is often generated, and the more fit offspring are selected for the next generation. When some offspring are correctly announced as more fit than others, external knowledge is being applied to the search giving rise to active information.” Deciding that an individual has achieved the search target is to decide that it is more fit than one that hasn’t, all search algorithms require some knowledge of the solution, namely what qualifies as a solution. The fitness function in this case is just binary or ‘all or nothing’ choice. The problem here is that reducing the evaluation criteria of a GA or other type of hill climbing algorithm to an all or nothing choice converts these algorithms into random searches - If a ‘hill climber’ can’t measure the slope then it is just doing a random walk. Providing an evaluation criteria that is non-binary does not necessarily imply or require knowledge about the search in hand, it just requires that the search space has certain properties in order for the search to be effective. In other words if your fitness landscape is flat with a single pinnacle of fitness then a graduated fitness function is of no help. “A “monkey at a typewriter” is often used to illustrate the viability of random evolutionary search.” This is an example of a random search with a binary evaluation criteria (it either is the works of Shakespeare of it isn’t) There is no descent with modification and no fitness metric, just a halting condition. It is NOT an evolutionary search.

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,08:17    Phew.  I've been away from AtBC, visiting the US of A (I'm astonished.  Some Yanks are even able to form whole sentences).  I'm back, and luxuriating in Dave's tard: Quote ne of the things that might be argued is Darwin’s notion of blended inheritance vs. Mendel’s particulate inheritance. I’m not convinced that on the whole blended inheritance is wrong. How would you explain children from one black parent and one white parent having skin color intermediate between the two? Mendel’s particulate theory would have both black and white children being produced from that couple but not children with intermediate skin pigmentation. Clearly blending does happen at least in some characters which are more complex than to be controlled by single alleles. Skin pigmentation in humans is obviously one of those more complex characters. Um Dave.  You might want to talk to your mate Bill about a guy called Ronald Fisher.  He showed why you're wrong over 90 years ago.  Basically, if you have lots of Mendelian genes having a small effect on a trait, you have a quantitative trait, and selection acts on the variation.  oh, and we have 90 years of evidence to show that this works as a model and explains the variation we see.  This kicked off the whole neo-Darwinist movement. Of course, we don't want to let the facts get in the way, do we? -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,08:18    The CoS draft also has the erroneous description of Dawkins' "weasel" program as "partitioned search". If that is one of the papers in press, I look forward to at least a corrective letter in response. Post 1 Post 2 Post 3 Of course, I run the risk that by mentioning this again, Dembski might alter the draft of the paper removing that particular error. Given over eight years of notice without a move to correction, though, it doesn't seem likely that he would take the hint now. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,08:23    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 21 2009,08:18) The CoS draft also has the erroneous description of Dawkins' "weasel" program as "partitioned search". If that is one of the papers in press, I look forward to at least a corrective letter in response. Post 1 Post 2 Post 3 Of course, I run the risk that by mentioning this again, Dembski might alter the draft of the paper removing that particular error. Given over eight years of notice without a move to correction, though, it doesn't seem likely that he would take the hint now. Nah, I pointed it out on the very thread when he announced his new "simulation" Weasel-ware and it was ignored. Link Yes, I was Stelios :) -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,09:14    Sal Gal's has a comment showing under "Recent Comment", but it's not showing on the thread. Quote Sal Gal: Abstract: Conservation of information theorems indicate that any search algorithm performs on average as... It's the Dembski thread. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,09:52    Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 21 2009,07:17) ... Quote ... Clearly blending does happen at least in some characters which are more complex than to be controlled by single alleles. ... ... Basically, if you have lots of Mendelian genes having a small effect on a trait, you have a quantitative trait, and selection acts on the variation.  ... Don't those two sentences say almost the same thing? Well, aside from him saying "allele" when he presumably meant "gene".

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,10:31    Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 21 2009,09:52)   Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 21 2009,07:17) ...     Quote ... Clearly blending does happen at least in some characters which are more complex than to be controlled by single alleles. ... ... Basically, if you have lots of Mendelian genes having a small effect on a trait, you have a quantitative trait, and selection acts on the variation.  ... Don't those two sentences say almost the same thing? Well, aside from him saying "allele" when he presumably meant "gene". Not really, because Dave doesn't appear to distinguish between phenotype and genotype.  Outward characteristics appear to blend; the genes remain stubbornly Mendelian. -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

slpage Posts: 349 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,10:34    Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:07) @oldmanintheskydidntdoit: I feel  honored that you remember me from PT, however you should know that one of my postings was censored, because I wrote that Carl Zimmer was wrong. It seems like you're the one who forbid open criticism.   Quote “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search” William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks I Abstract: Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search can stand no hope of success. Success, instead, requires an assisted search. assisted search = intelligent designer This is clearly POSITIVE evidence for ID. Dembski's articles are peer-reviewed, which means they are good quality stuff! Stop being such a bad loser and accept that ID has peer-reviewd articles. So, I wonder who reviewed this 'paper'?

slpage Posts: 349 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,10:36    Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:27) Quote   Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,11:24) From now on Darwinists shouldn't claim, that ID has no Peer-Review Papers: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature Strange.  I read through them, and noticed that there were no mentions of 'design' in either one. Dembski also failed to say when the papers had been accepted, or even received. Dr. Dembski uses the term "assisted search" as implication for intelligent design. This intention is clear from the fact, that he posted the good news on uncommendescent. Regarding publishing:   Quote both should be published later this year So, does this esoteric exercise in circular reasoning by the Baylor ID lab have any application to real life?

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,10:48    Quote Dembski: COI establishes that one search algorithm will work, on average, as well as any other when there is no information about the target of the search or the search space. That is very poorly written. Try this: Quote One search algorithm will work, on average, as well as any other when there is no information about the target of the search or the search space {across all possible search spaces}. Notice the extraneous clause. Quote Dembski: Such information does not magically materialize but instead results from the action of the programmer who prescribes how knowledge about the problem gets folded into the search algorithm. What Dembski is trying to imply, incorrectly, is that *any* search algorithm across *any* search space requires intelligent intervention. The vast majority of possible search spaces are essentially random. A random landscape means you can't form consistent generalizations via sampling. Furthermore, for every rational search algorithm, there is a perverse search algorithm (that moves away from solutions). So even for a well-ordered landscape, an *arbitrary* search algorithm is no better than any other. And though some landscapes are well-ordered, others are perversely ordered such that you have to move away from local solutions to find the global optimum. (And sometimes, even on reasonably-ordered landscapes, a search algorithm might sometimes have to back up to go forward.) Biological evolution works within an environment that exhibits various types of order, and evolutionary algorithms that climb multivariate fitness slopes work quite well. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Zachriel Posts: 2723 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,10:59    Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 21 2009,09:14) Sal Gal's has a comment showing under "Recent Comment", but it's not showing on the thread. Quote Sal Gal: Abstract: Conservation of information theorems indicate that any search algorithm performs on average as... It's the Dembski thread. Okay. Sal Gal's post finally showed. Quote Sal Gal: The notion of “performance” in the context of NFL is nonstandard. Performance is defined as the quality of a sample of n points in the search space and their associated fitness values. The running time of a search algorithm is entirely ignored... When time is taken into account, generally superior “searches” do emerge quite naturally {paper in review}. That should be an interesting paper. -------------- You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,12:01    Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 21 2009,09:17) Phew.  I've been away from AtBC, visiting the US of A (I'm astonished.  Some Yanks are even able to form whole sentences). Can do it. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,12:08    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 21 2009,10:01) Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 21 2009,09:17) Phew.  I've been away from AtBC, visiting the US of A (I'm astonished.  Some Yanks are even able to form whole sentences). Can do it. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,12:20    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 21 2009,12:08) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 21 2009,10:01)   Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 21 2009,09:17) Phew.  I've been away from AtBC, visiting the US of A (I'm astonished.  Some Yanks are even able to form whole sentences). Can do it. Bob O'H, in case you missed it, Arden called you names. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

tsig Posts: 339 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,12:41    Quote (olegt @ Jan. 19 2009,08:57) Fuller's posts bring out quality stuff to the surface!  allanius writes:   Quote Having said that, modern science is providing an induction of providence of its own accord. The blood clotting cascade is not only good but “very good.” The manufacturing capability of the cell is “very good” to the point of being astonishing. Light and gravity are both “very good” and in fact beyond human understanding. Hearing and sight are engineering marvels. Light and gravity beyond human understanding?  What century is this guy living in? Sounds like they're drifting in the dark.

tsig Posts: 339 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,12:59    Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 21 2009,04:20) Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:07) @oldmanintheskydidntdoit: I feel  honored that you remember me from PT, however you should know that one of my postings was censored, because I wrote that Carl Zimmer was wrong. It seems like you're the one who forbid open criticism.         Quote “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search” William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks I Abstract: Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search can stand no hope of success. Success, instead, requires an assisted search. assisted search = intelligent designer This is clearly POSITIVE evidence for ID. Dembski's articles are peer-reviewed, which means they are good quality stuff! Stop being such a bad loser and accept that ID has peer-reviewd articles. Nils, what these papers show is that despite a degree in Philosophy of Science and ten+ years in the field of ID, Dembski still doesn't understand how evolution works. He thinks living things are searching for the infinitismal portion of all possible genomes that will construct an organism capable of reproducing.  He is wrong! The fact that Dembski came from parents and has managed to reproduce himself shows that his DNA is already in the sweet spot!  ALL living organisms that successfully reproduce are in it.  They don't have to search for it, they just have to stay in it.  They do this by making only small changes to their genomes when they reproduce. Tell this to Dr. Dr. Dembski so he can finally stop making a fool of himself. Thanks for that comment CC I had never thought of it that way before. Pls mak teh learnin stop it hurz! lol

tsig Posts: 339 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,13:08    Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 21 2009,08:17) Phew.  I've been away from AtBC, visiting the US of A (I'm astonished.  Some Yanks are even able to form whole sentences).  I'm back, and luxuriating in Dave's tard: Quote ne of the things that might be argued is Darwin’s notion of blended inheritance vs. Mendel’s particulate inheritance. I’m not convinced that on the whole blended inheritance is wrong. How would you explain children from one black parent and one white parent having skin color intermediate between the two? Mendel’s particulate theory would have both black and white children being produced from that couple but not children with intermediate skin pigmentation. Clearly blending does happen at least in some characters which are more complex than to be controlled by single alleles. Skin pigmentation in humans is obviously one of those more complex characters. Um Dave.  You might want to talk to your mate Bill about a guy called Ronald Fisher.  He showed why you're wrong over 90 years ago.  Basically, if you have lots of Mendelian genes having a small effect on a trait, you have a quantitative trait, and selection acts on the variation.  oh, and we have 90 years of evidence to show that this works as a model and explains the variation we see.  This kicked off the whole neo-Darwinist movement. Of course, we don't want to let the facts get in the way, do we? Didn't Mendel get some pink peas? Hybrids seem to be "blended" in DS's term.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,14:56    Imagine pink whirled peas. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

bystander Posts: 301 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,18:04    I'm seeing a lot of interesting comments on Dr DDs post. They wont last long.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2009,18:07    Like this one   Quote Prof_P.Olofsson 01/21/2009 5:02 pm However, I don’t see how these 2 papers qualify as”pro-ID” until it is demonstrated how they are relevant to evolutionary biology. Remember that such claims were made for the original paper by Wolpert et al. until it was pointed out that it has assumptions that do not apply to evolutionary biology. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Bueller_007 Posts: 39 Joined: Nov. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2009,02:33    Dembski is unable or unwilling to say the relevance of the papers to evolutionary biology. Quote As for the relevance of this work to biology, let me remind commenters that Thomas Schneider used his ev program to argue against Behe and for the power of natural selection in biological evolution and that Rob Pennock cited his work on AVIDA likewise to argue against Behe and for evolution (Pennock cited this not in his NATURE article but in his Dover expert witness report). So if you’ve got a problem with the applicability of the research at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab to real-life biological evolution, take it up with Schneider and Pennock. Link.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2009,06:32    Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 22 2009,02:33) Dembski is unable or unwilling to say the relevance of the papers to evolutionary biology.   Quote As for the relevance of this work to biology, let me remind commenters that Thomas Schneider used his ev program to argue against Behe and for the power of natural selection in biological evolution and that Rob Pennock cited his work on AVIDA likewise to argue against Behe and for evolution (Pennock cited this not in his NATURE article but in his Dover expert witness report). So if you’ve got a problem with the applicability of the research at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab to real-life biological evolution, take it up with Schneider and Pennock. Link. Wow!  That is incredibly weaselly (pardon the pun), even under the high standards set previously by Dr. Dr. D. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2009,07:43    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 22 2009,06:32)   Quote (Bueller_007 @ Jan. 22 2009,02:33) Dembski is unable or unwilling to say the relevance of the papers to evolutionary biology.       Quote As for the relevance of this work to biology, let me remind commenters that Thomas Schneider used his ev program to argue against Behe and for the power of natural selection in biological evolution and that Rob Pennock cited his work on AVIDA likewise to argue against Behe and for evolution (Pennock cited this not in his NATURE article but in his Dover expert witness report). So if you’ve got a problem with the applicability of the research at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab to real-life biological evolution, take it up with Schneider and Pennock. Link. Wow!  That is incredibly weaselly (pardon the pun), even under the high standards set previously by Dr. Dr. D. Methinks it is like a Dembski. -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2009,11:22    Design Design Design       Quote The most striking thing about this article from a heuristic standpoint is that understanding the muscle under study depends completely on a design perspective, and owes nothing to any understanding of evolution. This is implicity acknowledged by the authors in the wording of their descriptions and conclusions: “The architectural design … demonstrates that the multifidus muscle is uniquely designed as a stabilizer to produce large forces.” Dacook continues       Quote I am not quote mining here. The entire article implicitly supports and acknowledges the idea that the multifidus muscle is elegantly designed. I do not mean to here suggest that the authors of this study meant it to support Intelligent Design. I do not know them and have no idea what their position is on ID. Quite likely their implied support for ID is unconscious. However, there is no mention anywhere in the article of any sort of evolutionary story behind the “design” of this muscle, or of the classic relationship in all of biology of the sarcomere length-tension curve. The investigators managed to come up with a hypothesis, conduct their study, and reach conclusions about this elegantly designed muscle without any consideration of or reference to evolution. The multifidus muscle makes excellent sense purely from a design perspective, without bringing evolution into it at all. In fact, a design perspective is necessary to understanding the muscle’s architecture and function, specifically the elegant coordination of the fiber arrangements and locations of its bony insertions with the length-tension curve of the sarcomeres. Is this the best they've got? Highlighting the word "design"? He finishes     Quote Any story-telling about the evolutionary origins of the multifidus muscle would be superfluous speculation adding nothing to our understanding of its form and function. I think it would be fair to say that in this case at least, biology does not make sense except in the light of design. That first sentence should read: Any story-telling about the evolutionary design origins of the multifidus muscle would be superfluous speculation adding nothing to our understanding of its form and function. So Dacook, what insights does "knowing" this system was designed offer us? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2009,11:55    Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 21 2009,12:20) [quote=Arden Chatfield,Jan. 21 2009,12:08] Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 21 2009,10:01)   Quote (Bob O'H @ Jan. 21 2009,09:17) Phew.  I've been away from AtBC, visiting the US of A (I'm astonished.  Some Yanks are even able to form whole sentences). Can do it. ... Bob O'H, in case you missed it, Arden called you names. Pah, I don't care.  Janiebelle thinks I'm sexah.  And she's not the only one. -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Pages: (500) < ... 165 166 167 168 169 [170] 171 172 173 174 175 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard